Imagine if Esperantists had our own currency

Esperanto is an international language, but do we need an international currency? At every congress, people come from many different countries to use a common language, but could they also use a common currency? Nowadays there is a massive growth in crypto-currencies like Bitcoin and that has me thinking. What if the Esperanto community had a currency?

Why would we need a currency?

As a matter of fact, the international nature of the Esperanto community makes it difficult to use one national currency. For example, at the World Congress people come from 60-70 countries and a wide range of different currencies. It’s very difficult for the organisers to deal with so many currencies and payment methods, so it would greatly simplify things if we had only one. Everyone loses money due to exchange fees, so if there was an international currency everyone would save money. The Revuo Esperanto boasts that it has subscribers in 120 countries, but that means many currencies for subscription costs to be paid in. Kontakto even lists its price in 15 different currencies on the inside cover page of every edition. Of course, the creation of the Euro certainly helped simplify matters but there are still many.

This could also be used to support creative Esperantists. Writers, musicians, vloggers can create material and strengthen our culture but only if the community supports them. But unfortunately, it’s very difficult to earn much money through Esperanto, so most creators are volunteers. It is difficult to donate due to technical issues, bank requirements, administration etc, so it’s complicated even for minor sums. Imagine if instead, every blogger and youtuber simply listed their account number at the end of the article or video. If you liked it and want to support them, you could easily click a button and immediately send the money as thanks. If we had our own currency, you wouldn’t need to jump through hoops to please banks or wait ages for the money to transfer from the UEA-account. The best part is that you could even send tiny amounts, even only 10 cent (or even 1 cent). If many people did this, it would all add up. These micro-payments could support and build links among our community.

To be honest, another good reason to create a currency is because it would be fun. Wouldn’t it be cool to have our own currency? What is Esperanto – a language with a flag, anthem and currency. It would be entertaining to have our own secret money that only we knew about. Even if people only used it for pretend games, I still think that would be fun. It could garner interest from the outside world and attract new people. It would be an example of the globalised nature of Esperanto and the ability of the community to work together for communal projects.

1_8f29YAiwwtEqT9TD_CVtUw

Similar projects

There is a surprisingly long history of many attempts to create a currency for Esperantujo. In 1907, “Spesmilo” was created which aimed to be an international bank system, but it faded away after the First World War. Between 1947 and 1993 there was the “Stelo” which aimed to be an international currency and solve the problems I mentioned above. The creators wanted to have a common currency to pay for events and magazines. So my idea is essentially a new version, except this time on the internet. You could even call it the “Nova Stelo”

In fact, there already is something similar to Esperanto money used during international youth events. There are often currency problems at the bar because it’s difficult to decide whether to use the local currency or the larger Euro, but many people have neither. It’s easier for everyone if there’s just one menu, not several according to currency. So, during the last JES, the bar only accepted “Stelo”, plastic tokens with a fixed exchange rate (a Polish zloty bought one or a Euro could buy four). Imagine if we converted that to a real currency.

800px-1+3+10Steloj2012_(1)
The plastic Stelo tokens used at some international youth events

UEA almost already has its own bank system, the UEA accounts but this is an antiquated and old-fashioned system. I can send money to any other member of UEA and pay for congresses with my account. But the system is out of date and very slow. To send money, I must send an email to the cashier of UEA, who might send money only after several days. Even to check how much money is in the account, you have to send an email and wait several days. Imagine if we improved the UEA accounts so that you could easily send and receive money with your phone?

logo

There already exists more than 1,500 crypto-currencies (and this number is rapidly growing) and there’s actually one with an Esperanto name. Monero uses the Esperanto word for coin as its name and for other features such as its wallet which is called monujo. But 99% of its users don’t know or haven’t even heard of Esperanto, so the name is the only connection. Would it be worthwhile to join an already existing currency and convert it into an Esperanto currency? I don’t think so because most people buy crypto-currencies just to get rich, they don’t care about the currency itself. In fact, crypto-currencies have many problems that make them unsuitable for use in Esperantujo.

Why other crypto-currencies aren’t suitable

In my last article, I discussed the problems and flaws of Bitcoin, and I believe it’s very important that we avoid these problems if we create an Esperanto currency. The first and most serious flaw is that Bitcoin doesn’t function as a currency. Almost no one spends it and a currency that people don’t spend is useless. People only buy Bitcoin as a get-rich-quick scheme, so they buy and wait until the price rises and then sell it. It’s just speculation like at a casino.

I don’t want to create a currency just for people to try to get rich, I want to create something that is useful to the community. There are several core problems with Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies which prevents them from becoming real currencies.

Firstly, they are wildly unstable and the price massively fluctuates. This is a disaster for a currency, because stability is a core requirement. Imagine if I wanted to page for a congress which costs €200 one day, €250 the next and then €150. I could order a book but by the time it arrives the price has already changed. The currencies are unstable because they are decentralised, no one manages the system. There isn’t any central bank to protect or guide it, instead it swings wherever the wind blows.

As the money supply is fixed, the currency is deflationary and the more people join, the higher the price goes. But if the price continually rises, there is no incentive to spend it, in fact you are punished for doing so. If I spend the money when the price is 5, but afterwards it rises to 10, I’d feel like an idiot because I missed the chance to double my money. But if people are always waiting for the price to rise, they will never spend the money. If everyone only holds the currency, waiting for a price rise, this even further increases volatility.

download
The original Stelo

How would the currency work?

To avoid these problems, I propose that our currency should have a central bank, preferable UEA and/or TEJO. To avoid speculation, it’s preferable that the price is fixed or at least very rigid, probably linked to some large currency like the Euro or Dollar. The central bank could issue more of the currency and increase the money supply to suit the needs of the currency. If the price is too high, they could sell more to lower the price and ensure the stability of the currency. I propose UEA and TEJO because they are trusted organisation who prioritise the community instead of just making money. Unlike many other crypto-currencies you don’t have to fear that they will rob or steal the money. They already have a large network of potential users and uses, such as the bookshop and congresses. UEA is larger but TEJO is younger and more open to new ideas, so they probably are more likely to support the idea of a currency.

I want the currency to be completely free of speculation, if anyone makes a profit from buying and selling the currency, then something has gone wrong. The goal of the currency is to be used and be useful, not to have a high price or be a speculative asset. There should be only one official site that sells the money (maybe the website of UEA or TEJO) and we could even prevent it from being resold. If you buy it, you must spend it in the Esperanto community or send it to other Esperantists. It could even be a source of revenue for UEA and TEJO, which certainly could do with some financial help. This could also prevent the other great problem of crypto-currencies, theft and fraud. An enormous number of exchanges have scammed their clients and robbed them, which is why I propose one trusted exchange.

Other cryptos have blockchains which are public ledgers. But we don’t need this because who wants for their spending to be public? I like my privacy and don’t want everyone to be able to see how much I spend in the bar and no business wants everyone to know how much their income and expenditure is. The blockchain is also massively inefficient because it requires an enormous amount of computer energy to confirm payments and create new coins. If the central bank did this instead, it would greatly simplify the matter and be more efficient. Other cryptos require payments to miners to confirm the payments, either with new coins or with transaction fees. Due to this, the payments of Bitcoin are slow and expensive, but if we had a central bank, it would be much faster and free.

Many crypto-currencies don’t have a community or reason to use them. They are like solutions searching for problems. Esperanto is special because we already have a community and already have a reason and need for an international currency. It would be easy to inform thousands of people about the new currency through blogs, YouTube videos and magazines.

How you would use the currency

So, my idea is that people could change their national currency to the “Nova Stelo” at the UEA or TEJO website. With this money, you could pay the registration fee to a congress, the subscription to a magazine, buy a book or some music etc. At the congress you could buy a beer or anything else from the shop. This is why it would be best if the money could be sent from a phone app. Or maybe I could just say my code (like with the UEA account) and the seller could automatically add it to my tab (of course it would have to be confirmed before it’s taken from the account). Afterwards I could thank and support Esperantists who write interesting articles with a little donation. The currency would be completely stabile and everyone could easily and freely send money.

Unfortunately, I know absolutely nothing about programming or the technical aspect of crypto-currencies. I appeal to any programmers to contact me to discuss the possibility of my proposal. What are the possible problems, costs, technical issues? I only wish to give several proposals from an economic and financial perspective. So, what do you think? Is this a good idea? Is it possible or worth doing? Is my proposal a good way to run a currency? Maybe this is merely a crazy and unrealistic idea, but all new inventions are crazy at first, aren’t they?

(This article was originally written in Esperanto)

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Imagine if Esperantists had our own currency”

  1. I am a programmer, but I don’t do Bitcoin/Blockchain stuff…

    Though a centralized, 1-server currency system wouldn’t be exactly hard to do. The biggest thing would be if the server was hacked, is the money backed by USD/EURO, anti-money laundering laws…

  2. “I propose UEA and TEJO because they are trusted organisation who prioritise the community instead of just making money. Unlike many other crypto-currencies you don’t have to fear that they will rob or steal the money. ”

    Yes you do. My national Esperanto association, affiliated to UEA, acted as a sort of bank for the members and the regional Esperanto federations. In the 1990s they declared a ‘financial crisis’, and conned the members into consolidating all the accounts of the affiliated federations into one account, from which federations could withdraw money by special request, if the Management Committee agreed. As a result there were few, if any, requests for withdrawal, and eventually the very existence of those funds went out of the memory of the membership. The federations wilted away. From 1994 to 1999 their treasurer was constantly telling the committee and the membership that they were eating up the association’s capital, and so promotional work had to be limited. Eventually they got the membership to agree to them selling their shop in Holland Park Avenue, London. In December 2005 I thought I’d better check the accounts, because not once as far as I could tell, having been through all the minutes for that period, could I find a statement of how much capital they actually had. Even the accounts were written in such a way that you couldn’t see that. I did a lot of calculations, which showed that the capital was actually shooting up dramatically. In 2011 the treasurer finally admitted that my figures were correct. Since then I will never deposit money with the association. UEA is disinterested, and therefore I maintain only a limited amount of money in my UEA account.

    The very term ‘Central Bank’ implies corruption. Just think of the Fed and of the financial crises. I like the thinking behind the idea, but more thinking needs to be done before a simple yet reliable system is to be found. But whatever happens, UEA needs to sort itself out.

    1. Do you have any evidence for this? I don’t know the details of the case, but you act like a conspiracy theorist on a personal crusade. I’ve seen your comments on a few blogs before, you tend to bring up your personal argument everywhere regardless of whether it is relevant or not. I would be very dubious of any claim that the EAB stole its members money and everyone just forgot about it. It also seems strange that they would fake a financial crisis (for what reason?). Either way you seem to be still very angry about something that happened a long time ago.

      1. Yes, I do. I wrote several internal reports on the association in 2005, but submitted only one, the financial report. In no way did I suggest a conspiracy; that was entirely in the mind of the beholder. I merely compiled the figures from the annual accounts and the minuted items of the committee for that period. They were so obviously not compatible. I suggested that perhaps the financial crisis was due to too much capital being caught up in allocated funds, which couldn’t be used for other purposes. I did not go public on that, but submitted the report to the President in confidence, thereby handing over to him the responsibility of following this through in his own way. He did precisely that. He immediately declared me ‘paranoid’ (just as he had done to Lapenna in 1974) and then I was getting intimidating messages from others in the Management Committee. This isn’t about anger; it’s about political intervention. Yes, I could hardly believe what I was finding, and their legal advisor was as sceptical as I was, until I phoned him with the evidence. Eventually he said, “It was hard to see at first, but when you do see it, it’s bleeding obvious”. I later recalculated, and found that my tentative explanation would not have accounted for the ‘financial crisis’. Email me and I’ll search out my report for you. Ian at Fantom (.org.uk)

  3. An Esperanto currency is a good idea. Money creates rich men like trump. Women love rich men. Esperanto is a language of the elite. They always blame the normal man for voting for the rich, because Europeans idolate money and the rulling class. A European would never blame trump, only the normal voter. The rich are always safe in any currency. Luckily the everyman will be there speaking Esperanto to take the blame from everyone. The feminsts will blame him for being a man, and people like Trump will not truly be the bad guy, because at least they are rich and the Europeans idolate rich men. Just blame the normal man in the USA. Make him learn Esperanto so anyone can blame him even if they dont speak Engrish.

    1. Esperanto: Finally a Simple language that allows anyone in the world to engage in the Whipping Boy Democratic process.

    2. “Esperanto is a language of the elite” — absolutely the reverse of the truth. The idea of an Esperanto currency is great — but would any sensible person trust a central bank any more?

      1. Why would any trust an Esperanto Bank? Bankejo? It’s a sham, that you relentless scam-artists also need normal people to fulfill your crooked goals in finance and internationalism. To my way of thinking, internationalism only aids criminals. A better form of internationalism is merely geographic. Rich American white kids will learn Esperanto in order to be part of the liberal elite in Europe. Probably they vote Democrat. The Democrats are corrupted and help the European elite bomb Serbia, Libya, pretend to end the war against Islam, and aid the phony European liberals. That’s why I am inventing “Indio”. With Indio the white liberal elite will have to face it’s past of exterminating Indians and the continual attempts to control Latin America. The Europeans can have Esperanto in Europe with your George Soros patriarchs.

  4. Hi Robert, I commented in your last post about Bitcoin. First of all, I offer you an apology if I was rude. I think in this topics we sometimes tend to be incendiary. That was my mistake. As I see it, being a defensor of Esperanto, you want to remove frontiers in language, and now, in currencies too. You don’t think Bitcoin is the ideal “currency” for that, and it’s ok. Many of your claims are legit (for example, that Bitcoin is right now being used for speculating and not for the real economy).

    But I’m here to comment on your current post.

    “To be honest, another good reason to create a currency is because it would be fun.”

    Well, that was Bitcoin too in the beginning, a toy from anarchist to anarchists, created as a form of money for the cryptoanarchist community. Then someone wanted to buy Bitcoins, and they calculated the price simply as the electric bill needed for generating it. Then more people wanted to buy Bitcoins (just for fun yet), and then more, and then… you know the rest of the story. It’s difficult (if not impossible) to stop the speculators from entering to your coin once its adoption starts to growth beyond your community, so maybe your best chance is keeping it small.

    “The central bank could issue more of the currency and increase the money supply to suit the needs of the currency. If the price is too high, they could sell more to lower the price and ensure the stability of the currency.”

    That’s the easy part, but what about when the price starts to go down? Many stablecoins created by central institution exists today, and everything is fine when demand growth (they just emit more money), but as demand shrinks, the only option is to absorb the excess of money, but that becomes more and more difficult as people keep selling, and since the institution need to rebuy more and more coins at a fixed price, eventually it runs out of money and the coin is simply let to float to market prices, ending the stable price.

    https://prestonbyrne.com/2018/01/11/epicaricacy/

    “An enormous number of exchanges have scammed their clients and robbed them, which is why I propose one trusted exchange.”

    Many of us think that there are no trusted exchanges, there are no trusted third parties. History has proved again and again that when a central agent becomes too big, it will start to abuse the confidence that users put in it. That’s why most cryptocurrencies work within a decentralized system. Maybe you don’t agree with this, in that case, there is no much more to discuss. Again this time, your best chance is keeping it small, so there is no too much interest in breaking the rules.

    “So, my idea is that people could change their national currency to the “Nova Stelo” at the UEA or TEJO website.”

    That’s fine, but how a person in Botswana would buy it? Using international transfer? At the end the user needs to send a payment to another country anyway, so is not that useful. But it’s not too difficult to create a stablecoin with a tethered value, if you have no problem with trusted third parties. Say you want to create a coin with 1:1 parity to dollar. You send the UEA and TEJO $10 USD, they put it in a bank account and emit 10 tokens that send to you and that you can send freely to your fellow Esperantists (just as the colored plastic tokens from your image). You don’t even need a cryptocurrency for that, all the data and transactions could simply stay on the central server and the tokens could being only sent in the UEA and TEJO platforms, to other registered users. In theory, you could change that 10 tokens for $10 USD again in any moment, since the money is still in the bank account and all the tokens are being backed by “real money”, so you need not worry about price fluctuations. Your coins can even be redeemed if you use it to pay a subscription or a congress, and in the congress the stands could accept your tokens and change it to dollars with the UEA and TEJO once the congress finish.

    This tokens could be useful for the people outside the developed countries, since they maybe can get enough tokens to pay fully for a subscription or a congress without needing to send an international payment, using only the tokens that they received as donations, and the people in the developed countries, for whom it is much more easy to acquire these tokens, could help give liquidity to this tokens system.

    I see some problems though:

    1. Buying tokens will be as difficult as to make payments or subscriptions was, especially to Esperantists outside the developed countries. This only could be resolved with a token with global and general acceptance, but in that case, you would need a LOT of money, or permit to fluctuate with the market, as any currency.
    2. The third party could, in theory, begins to emit more tokens than USD has in their bank account, so it would be healthy to make periodic audits to ensure the financial stability of the system. As the bank accounts grow, expect that thrusted third party became not so trusted.
    3. Most people won’t be able to redeem their tokens for USD, as they would need another international transfer back to their country, so they will have to conform to spend it again in the community. Maybe this is not to bad. But if you want your tokens could be redeemed, then we go back to the problem of point 1.

    And of course, there would be the discussion of if this tokens could be considered money at all (since they lack general acceptance and liquidity), but that’s just a problem of semantics.

    Finally, I know you don’t like Bitcoin, but maybe you could consider it only as a pivot token that can facilitate a lot those international transfers. UEA and TEJO could just receive Bitcoins, convert it immediately to USD (so they are not affected by the volatility) and keep that USD balance ready to be spent by the user. Same for redeeming the tokens.

    Regards.

    1. Yes your last comment was incredibly hostile, which is why I ignored it. Thank you for your apology. Some thoughts on your comment:

      – Bitcoin was never just a fun project (like Dogecoin), it was always intended to be a serious currency. While some do get involved for fun, more are involved because they believe it will fundamentally change the economic structure.

      – A drop in the price wouldn’t cause any problems, in fact it would be a profit opportunity for the exchange. Imagine if someone buys the coin at $1 and tries to sell it at $0.80. Well, the exchange can easily buy it back and make a profit of $o.20

      – As for trusted exchanges, I’m deliberately thinking of something different to Bitcoin. There are already over a thousand decentralised cryptos so there’s no need to make another. In the Esperanto community there already is a trusted body, so it makes sense within this community. Personally I believe that history shows the necessity of having a central bank and the fiasco that are cryptos re-enforces the point.

      – Botswana is not the target market for the currency

      – What is the point of using tokens in your example? How is sending 200 tokens to Botswana and from there to a congress easier than using a bank transfer? “Bitcoin for the unbanked” is a nonsense slogan, in the real world the people using crypto have access to banks and the internet.

      – What would be the point of using Bitcoin if both parties will immediately exchange and get rid of it? Other than helping Bitcoin of course, which seems to be the main motivation behind most Bitcoin “solutions”.

      1. “Bitcoin was never just a fun project”

        I kind of disagree whit you. Although bitcoin was created as a theoretic perfect money (according it’s creators), I doubt that they were sure that the project would not end like many other similar previous projects (egold, ecash, etc). The evident proof that many of the initial users use it just for fun is that many of them eventually forgot about BTC and lost their private keys, so when Bitcoin began to soar, they could not access their wallets anymore. We’re talking about 4 millions BTC lost that way.

        http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/

        “Imagine if someone buys the coin at $1 and tries to sell it at $0.80. Well, the exchange can easily buy it back and make a profit of $o.20”

        The idea of a stable currency is that you can always sell it back to its creators at a fixed price. The authority that emitted the tokens have the obligation to buy it back at $1 (in our example). If the user agreed to receive only $0.80, is because he couldn’t get the whole dollar from the creators, so for practical purposes, the parity is broken, which means that we are not talking about a stablecoin anymore. From there, the collapse of the “stablecoin” comes quickly. The only way to avoid this scenario is having enough “real money” to buy back all the emitted tokens at a rate 1-1. And once again, that requires a lot of money.

        “In the Esperanto community there already is a trusted body, so it makes sense within this community.”

        That’s great, a really trusted third party can facilitate a lot of problems, so keep it that way.

        “Personally I believe that history shows the necessity of having a central bank”

        They were no central banks in the renaicense, nor at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In fact, they were no central bank at practically no point in the entire human history. The actual order of things is very recent, before that the world managed just fine. It is not a coincidence that the first world war began just when most of Europe abandoned the gold standard in favor of fiat currencies emitted by central banks. Maybe you can share your historical facts with me?

        “Botswana is not the target market for the currency”

        I thought the whole world would be the target market for your currency, since the Esperanto community is international. If the target market is the developed first world, then international payments should not be a serious problem. A nuisance, at best, that will wash away soon with the protocols of international transfer that many big banks are testing right now (based on private blockchain solutions like ripple).

        “What would be the point of using Bitcoin if both parties will immediately exchange and get rid of it? ”

        The local liquidity. If Bitcoin is accepted as well in Botswana and in US, then a fellow Esperantist who needs to pay, say $20 for a subscription, can buy $20 worth of BTC locally in Botswana (and paying with the local currency), send it to an address of the UEA or TEJO to pay for the subscription and now they sell it back (immediately) in a local exchange in US to obtain the $20 int their bank account. UEA or TEJO can easily implement an online platform that accept Bitcoins and sell it automatically in an exchange so they have no problem with the change of price in short time. Any other cryptocurrency can do the same, as long as it have general acceptance. Bitcoin is who has the most.

        Put in more simple terms. “Hey Robert, I liked your article, I just send it .001 BTC to your adress.” I don’t know where you live, and you can still say “this is not real money!” but surely you can change those Bitcoins to your local currency in an exchange anyway. In many of them, you can configure your account to sell automatically and immediately the bitcoins you receive in your wallet, so volatility doesn’t affect you. ¿What is the problem with that scheme? The alternative is a bank transfer, more difficult, expensive, tedious, slow, and sometimes even imposible. Anyway, this proposal was not intended to work with your tokens idea, it’s just a practical proposal to solve your initial problem: the currencies tower of Babel.

        “How is sending 200 tokens to Botswana and from there to a congress easier than using a bank transfer?”

        Because the tokens are just balances in the central servers of your third trusted party, you are not really sending the tokens, the same way we do not send Bitcoins, but just transfer the rights over them. And as I said in my first comment, the liquidity comes from the users for whom it is easy to give liquidity to the system, namely the Esperantists living in the developed countries. It will be much more easy to Esperantists from US or EU to buy tokens from the trusted third party (which saves the dollars or euros in their bank), so they can transfer the property of those tokens to a fellow Esperantist in Botswana, so he can now pay for a congress. Since the tokens just mean an IOU, and money never left the bank of your trusted third party, it’s now easy to redeem the tokens simply updating the balances.

        But at the end I agree with you, these hypothetical tokens are not so much useful. I’m just trying to propose something viable given the characteristics that you want for your currency, but this is as far as I can go without saying “ok so… you want to invent Bitcoin”. It’s not that Bitcoin is perfect, it’s just that create a universal currency from scratch, with little or no money to back it, and with initially no one accepting it, is something incredibly difficult with many variables that will not be totally in your control.

        “What are the possible problems, costs, technical issues? […] Is it possible or worth doing? Is my proposal a good way to run a currency? ”

        I can tell you that the technology is a problem solved (as long as you have money proportional to the scale of your system) and any idea you can structure, you can have implemented. The real problem is human interactions and the fact that you can not force many things that you should force in order to get things exactly the way you want. If change and force the human nature was an easy thing, all the economic crisis could have been avoided. But, as we can see, even the central banks, with all the power, resources and authority, just can’t have things exactly the way they want.

        1. “The idea of a stable currency is that you can always sell it back to its creators at a fixed price.”

          That’s one way to implement it but not the only way. That sound more like a fixed currency or even the tokens you mentioned earlier. A currency can still be stable so long as the volatility is kept very low. Either way, there is no reason or incentive for someone to sell at a price lower than they bought, certainly not on a scale large enough to endanger the currency.

          “They were no central banks in the renaicense, nor at the beginning of the industrial revolution”

          Why would central banks have any impact on the Renaissance which was a cultural event? Central banks are relatively new in human history, but so is capitalism. Claiming the world “managed just fine” before central banks is like saying for most of human history we didn’t have electricity and managed just fine without it so why do we need it?

          “It is not a coincidence that the first world war began just when most of Europe abandoned the gold standard in favor of fiat currencies emitted by central banks. Maybe you can share your historical facts with me?”

          You really don’t know much about history or economics do you? Has no one ever told you that correlation does not equal causation or do you also think it’s no coincidence that the first world war began just after the invention of the assembly line? Worst still you completely confuse the order of events – countries abandoned the gold standard BECAUSE of WW1. They left in order to pay for the war, leaving didn’t cause the war in the first place.

          “¿What is the problem with that scheme? The alternative is a bank transfer, more difficult, expensive, tedious, slow, and sometimes even imposible.”

          How do I get bitcoins in the first place? By setting up an account with an exchange and then transferring money there, which is just as slow and tedious of a process, if not more so. Bitcoin is only a solution if we are already set up on the system, you can’t ignore the costs of joining the system.

          ” I’m just trying to propose something viable given the characteristics that you want for your currency, but this is as far as I can go without saying “ok so… you want to invent Bitcoin”.”

          This is the problem with discussions with bitcoiners, you’ve decided the answer is Bitcoin, so you twist all the other steps to ensure you get there. I’ve made it abundantly clear in the article that Bitcoins are not suitable, you are stubbornly ignoring this because it conflicts with your agenda. You want people to use Bitcoin so much that you don’t care whether it even meets their needs or if it is the most suitable solution.

  5. “Why would central banks have any impact on the Renaissance which was a cultural event? ”

    I think that cultural, social, political and economic contexts are always related and causal each with another, analyzing just one context ignoring everything else can’t show you the whole picture.

    “countries abandoned the gold standard BECAUSE of WW1.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking#Development_of_central_banking

    My mistake. Central banks were created mostly before ww1 (runing by gold standard), and accumulate large quantities of gold from their depositors. With the start of the conflict and the money centralized in those central banks, governments were able to abandon gold and keep fiat (and devaluate it) so governments could continue the conflict.

    “By setting up an account with an exchange and then transferring money there, which is just as slow and tedious of a process, if not more so.”

    No, because once again, we are talking about local transfers, not international transfers. You have clearly not used Bitcoins, and its fine, but you are talking from ignorance here. In my country, a person with a debit card can open an account in a local exchange, fund it with bank transfer (locally), get bitcoins, and send it to any wallet he wants, all in less than 5 minutes.

    “This is the problem with discussions with bitcoiners, you’ve decided the answer is Bitcoin.”

    No, my solution, as I said from the very beginning, was my tokens system. But it didn’t like you either, so… you propose then. I mean, it’s easy to say “my money will be accepted everywhere, have very stable value, and do this, and that, and even more!”. But still, you have to create it from scratch, like everyone else, because as far as I know, you don’t own a central bank. So, maybe it’s time that you, with your economic and historic experience, make the proposals now, so how do you start? Oh and once again I’ll tell you

    “I appeal to any programmers to contact me to discuss the possibility of my proposal.”

    It is possible, there is now a technological framework that you can use to make your currency with the characteristics that you want. Want to make it inflationary? Just don’t cap the total supply. Want to make it nature-friendly? Use Proof-of-Stack instead of Proof-of-Work. Want to be able to expand and shrink the supply? Make it centralized. Everything is possible, and because of that, right now, there is like 200 altcoins. Are you not a programmer? Well, that’s bad but not too bad, because you can still pay to someone to do the job. But they will not say to you what are you looking for (after all, it is your currency, not theirs), you need to have a very specific idea with very specific characteristics. Just a couple examples: who will control the money supply? You say “UEA and/or TEJO”, but UEA and/or TEJO are not a person. WHO will control it and what will be the rules for this person (or committee) to be elected or replaced? What are the criteria that this person will use to expand the supply? You say “oh if the value rise, we just print more” Ok, rise to how much? and of what currency? Because you know prices don’t fluctuate exactly the same in all fiat currencies. And who would pay all the operating expenses associated with your central currency? Will the UEA/TEJO be able to print more money to cover operational expenses? or you will charge a fee for buy/sell your currency?

    I’m just saying that you need to be more specific and not to care right now about the technological framework. You’ll get to that, eventually, if you can give form to your idea. Maybe right now you don’t have a detailed plan, that’s fine too. But I’m interested in what are you going to do next. I really am, I’m not being sarcastic, because unlike you could think of me, although I love Bitcoin, I don’t want (or care) that everyone uses it. What I want is for people to be able to propose (and choose) freely. So I’m not against your idea, and I don’t think it’s unrealistic. It’s just very vague, and the devil is in the details. So make the details (in another article, of course, not here), maybe then the discussion may be more productive and positive.

    1. Well, this isn’t a white paper and I’m not launching the currency any time soon. This is more of a thought experiment where I test the waters to see who is interested and what they think. The finer points haven’t been decided because this is only the first step.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s